Ma vie de star

jeeezz...i personally love Audrey Hepburn..but jennifer love hewitt has totally ruined it by acting as the legendary icon in this awful movie!!!!when i was watching this movie,all the time i was wondering,WHY JENNIFER???there are other better actresses out there and some actually looked a bit like Audrey herself!(think natalie portman,winona ryder,calista flockhart).then i realised that she was the co-executive producer of the show,so it's pretty OBVIOUS why she was chosen to act as Audrey!it's a shame that a movie about this waif-like actress was taken down by Jennifer's lack of acting skills.

Well, duh, there'll never be an Audrey Hepburn. She was unique and special and still is inimitable. There'll never be another like her, we all know that. But still, Jennifer Love Hewitt- whom I have yet to see in anything else- actually does a pretty admirable job of pretending to be Hepburn, with the accent and most everything else. It's quite obvious that she's trying very hard, and she is to be commended. She really isn't that bad, though the movie itself isn't quite as good. Yes, the narrative has huge gaps; one minute she's dying of malnutrition, and after the commercial break she's back on her feet and studying ballet. Her films fly by in a flash. The films were more worthwile than the subplot of her undying love for her father, who is portrayed as such a cold fish you just don't see the attraction. And as fine as Hewitt is, since this isn't really Aurdey Hepburn, it's a little difficult to believe that everyone-excpet her father- who knows her immediatly adores her. But other than that,... it wasn't bad.

Let me begin by saying that I am extremely biased when it comes to Audrey Hepburn therefore it is perfectly logical from my point of view that no one can play Audrey Hepburn but Audrey Hepburn. Miss Hewitt is (its been said before many times) too full when it comes to her bosom and she didn't flash a huge smile like Audrey did. Audrey's smile could light up a whole room (even better than Julia!) and Hewitt could barely light a candle in a corner so to speak. Her hair was pathetically streaked in the "Tiffany" scenes whereas Audrey's streaks blended perfectly with her natural brown tresses. Also, Audrey's hair was butched at the Oscar ceremony... Hewitt's was the same as it was during the filming of "Roman Holiday". As for the rest of the cast, Emmy Rossum was much better as young Audrey than Hewitt. Frances Fischer (of "Titanic" fame... she was Kate Winslet's self-righteous mother) was believable as Audrey's mother, Baroness Edda Van Heemstra. Eric McCormick was too contemporary to play Mel Ferrer, plus he didn't look a thing like him; the same applies to Gabriel Macht who played Bill Holden but Michael J. Burg captured the essence of Truman Capote to the button. The most embarrassing of all was Ray Landry as Humphrey Bogart; he had way too much makeup on him to look meatier where Bogie was a skinny, ugly railing. Plus, his accent was pathetically forced like he was trying way too hard to impersonate Bogie and he still couldn't do a good job. The film in short, should never have been made... no one can play Audrey Hepburn but Audrey Hepburn!

Well, it's no surprise that this movie has gotten so many bad reviews. It was never going to be great. Jennifer Love Hewitt could never be Audrey Hepburn. We all know this. That being said, many of us who hated the movie have offered suggestions of who would have been better. Some say Natalie Portman, some say Winona Ryder. Many suggested actresses who looked more like Audrey Hepburn. I disagree.

Here's the deal: Audrey Hepburn had a style, grace, charm and elegance without equal. She had a talent and a screen presence like no other. She was a gifted actress who gave up showbiz and dedicated her life to UNICEF and helping children across the world. She had a rare beauty both outside and in. Who could play Audrey Hepburn? No one.

Despite the other comments on this page -apparently submitted by the Jennifer Love Hewitt Appreciation Society (or the Denial of Terrible Movies society), there can be no doubt that "The Audrey Hepburn Story" is one of THE WORST movies ever made. Yes, no one could ever recapture the magic that was Audrey Hepburn, but for God's sake, why did they even try? From the shonky knockoffs of Givenchy gowns, to the blatant errors in the film recreations, to the extremely poor Bogart impersonator, this movie is so bad in fact, is is grotesquely fascinating.

And at the centre of it all we have Miss Hewitt herself, all stiff grey wigs (who designed THEM?!), phoney Continental accent and smug little smile. Honey, that your bust is a little larger than Audrey's should be the LEAST of your worries!!!

I shudder to think that future generations might stumble upon this cinematic travesty (OK, I know it was made for television) and take it as a serious tribute to the lovely Miss Hepburn. They will surely wonder what we all saw in her. But that will never happen. Audrey's movies will be remembered forever- long after this Z-grade piece of rubbish is consigned to pop-culture oblivion.

Take a bow, filmmakers. You've managed to reduce the life of one of the screen's most beloved icons to Audrey's one-note obsession with finding her father (how's *that* for a fresh idea!) and producing offspring.

To the sadly misguided Hewitt fans (you know who you are) who took it upon themselves to insult Audrey Hepburn in a vain attempt to make JLH look better, you ought to get your heads examined.

JLH you should be ashamed of yourself!!!! (I'm ashamed of myself too, that I actually took the time to write this thing for such a poorly acted, written and directed- not to mention every other aspect of production- waste of videotape.)